I was listening to my 'Greatest Military Blunders' Audible book today, and the two episodes I listened to covered WW2. The first was the British Navy - both in the Pacific and up near Norway (Prince of Wales + Repulse, + abandoning a convoy that then lost 75% of its ships thinking the Tirpitz was coming). And then the second episode was Dieppe (up next is Market Garden!). It raised some interesting points, so I thought I would stir up some WW2 Focused discussion and post this thread (which technically spans both periods setup in this forum for Western Europe). The Purpose of the Dieppe Raid: "Too Big to be a Raid, yet too Small to be an Invasion...What were you trying to do?" ~ German Interrogator The object of the Deippe Raid seems to have been to capture Dieppe, hold it for some time, and then evacuate. This seems rather pointless to me - what would be the point in doing that? -If the 'Raid' had been successful, would not the Germans have then intensified and increased their building of the Atlantik Wall prior to Rommels arrival (upon arriving in Normandy, he was shocked at the state of the defenses and intensified the construction of the defenses ~1944) Roughly 2 more years of upscale building would have resulted in a (potentially) much harder nut to crack when D-Day June 6 1944 rolls around (if its even deemed feasible at that point). How would the Canadians in Dieppe be supplied, or was it supposed to be an 'overnight' trip sort of thing? -German Reaction to a Successful Raid - would they have destroyed Dieppe, trying to cut off the Canadians from the sea once Dieppe has fallen? The Luftwaffe was quite successful against the RAF during the Raid, so you would have defenders in a town with no real air cover. The Planning One of the beaches, that led up a heavily defended Ravine, was mentioned (I don't know which beach). Some one apparently commented that it would be truly hard to find a worse place to land on the Atlantic coast. So, did the planners for this invasion just role the dice and see what looked good on the map? The shingles on the beaches were atrocious for the tanks that were involved. There was no shore bombardment (of note), aerial bombardment, or paratrooper landing either. This, however, was not the first Amphibious Assault of the War for the Allies - there had already been several such landings in other theatres - so why was this so botched in all the stages? The AAR What was learned from Dieppe, other than a showcase of what not to do during an Amphibious Assault? I am perplexed by this as there were plenty of other Amphibious Assaults where lessons were learned and improved upon. By the time Overlord came around, had Dieppe had any impact on any of the plannings there? There were plenty of other landings prior to and after the one at Dieppe, so what exactly was garnered from it? No Dieppe, No Normandy? I don't think the two are related, given all the other landings, but without Dieppe, would Normandy have still been attempted, or perhaps even attempted earlier?